As the Connecticut General Assembly adjourned on June 3rd, it was clear that SB 650 had been abandoned and left to wither on the vine. SB 650, which sought to make criminals of regular gun owners that had been accused, without due process or hearing if they did not surrender their self-defense tools was abandoned by Democrats and Republicans alike in the Senate.

Connecticut Carry and the state’s leading firearms law experts like Attorney Rachel Baird have sought to publically educate the legislature regarding the pre-existing ability of the state’s judicial and executive branch to confiscate firearms from people that pose a verified threat to another individual. Instead, many in the legislature have instead invested themselves into following the lies of the anti-rights lobby that seeks to spread these kind of cookie cutter bills across the country since they failed on a Federal level.

The one essential truth of SB 650 is that it would have destroyed the rights of individuals to defend themselves with contemporary tools if they are accused of violence by any single person, including the person that is initiating violence against them. A domestic abuser would only need to know the law to have law enforcement disarm their victim to prepare for their violent attack.

Connecticut Carry adamantly opposes any such prohibition or idea, as the only thing that definitively protects a victim of violence is the armed means of defense that they have close at hand. However, in this case, the legislation sought to do the complete opposite by disarming victims of domestic violence, which is completely unacceptable and reprehensible.

Connecticut Carry would like to extend extra thanks and recognition to Senator Joe Markley, who took a stand against this bill, and even introduced an amendment to try and bring the repeal of the 2013 Gun Ban to a vote. This was a courageous move by Senator Markley and we appreciate his fortitude in attempting to set right what has gone horribly wrong in Connecticut. We hope that Senator Markley and other colleagues of his will continue and expand upon his gesture.

Demonstrating that this year's push for automatic confiscation of firearms from anyone accused by a single party of being a threat to anyone else is nothing but a short sighted and ill-researched push by the anti-rights lobby, and playing into the instruction by Representative William Tong that "this [bill] does not have to be intellectually coherent" . Gabby Giffords, the anti-rights crusader has come to Connecticut.

Notably joining her in the media coverage were Governor Malloy, Representative Sharkey and the surviving Jackson family, victims of a deranged, bipolar lunatic murderer.

Appearing in front of the press, Giffords said: "Dangerous people with guns are a threat to women,” But the fact is, that dangerous people are, by definition, dangerous to everyone. Genders don't stop vicious animals or violent, bipolar criminals. And restraining orders and laws certainly don't stop them either.

If those things did stop vicious murderers, then Lori Jackson's sister, Kacey Mason would not have a cause to recall at the press conference"the many security steps Lori had taken to protect herself, but Gellatly still obtained a gun from out of state, invaded Merry Jackson's home and shot the women.". Interestingly, nobody at the conference mentioned that the ex parte restraining order issued against the vicious attacker did order him to surrender all of his firearms and ammunition. It also did not mention that notice of the order failed, which would render the current proposed bills useless as well, something that the Jackson family openly admitted at the March 11th Judiciary Public Hearing.

But whether or not he turned in his firearms or ammunition, the claim by the state is that he went to Virginia and bought his handgun there. This is, of course, a violation of Federal law. So that is another felony law that did not protect the Jacksons on that day. In addition, a security system, panic buttons and phone calls to police also did not protect the Jacksons.

That we do not advocate for continuing those silly measures is only a sign that we pay attention to what protects victims and wish to help protect more people in Connecticut from violent attackers. The sole fact of the matter is that the only thing that could have protected the Jacksons that day was equal or overwhelming force on their behalf. When trying to protect someone from a deranged lunatic bent on homicide, there is no secret; the only thing that is going to stop him is deadly force. In this case, when you have two women and a young child trying to stop that homicidal lunatic, the best tools for that job are firearms.

But the collectivist system that they are now lobbyists for failed them that day. No one advocated common sense like having the tools to defends themselves and the training to make it happen. No one advised them that they had the ability to use a Risk Warrant against the lunatic that they knew was bent on doing them harm. And that is a shame. An innocent life was lost, another life seriously injured and many lives impacted by the state's inactions and prejudices.

That kind of ignorance and prejudice is not at all difficult to find in Representative Brendan Sharkey's rhetoric. "It's not immediate," Sharkey said of the existing law. "It's not something that enables a victim who believes he or she is in imminent peril to be able to remove the guns from someone's home immediately. The purpose of this legislation is to say that when a victim is in front of a judge and obtains a temporary restraining order, that is the moment when you want to ensure that the guns are removed from the situation on a temporary basis."

Is Sharkey that ignorant of the law, despite having the facts pushed on the Judiciary Committee in a marathon public hearing on March 11th? Or is he simply lying for a bill that he supports to curry favor with Governor Malloy? When he says a Risk Warrant is not 'immediate', despite the fact that a Risk Warrant has no statutory time limitation like the bill he champions does, and the law he champions gives an offender 24 hours to voluntarily surrender their firearms as opposed to a Risk Warrant where the police just go and confiscate the firearms as soon as the warrant is issued, how can Rep. Sharkey honestly say that these bills are somehow more 'immediate' than the Risk Warrant statute (CGS 29-38c)? When he says that is the 'moment' that the guns should be taken from the person an ex parte order is issued against, is he ignorant of the bill he is supporting, or is he lying and trying to deceive the public that the bill specifically gives 24 hours after the order is issued for the person to surrender their firearms?

"Malloy defended his proposal, saying that it will soon be unacceptable in Connecticut, as in several other states, to take action and remove guns when someone is able to come forward, admit to being victimized and ask for help."

Malloy, however, did not mention that police around the state, including his State Police have been illegally confiscating firearms and threatening felony arrest on anyone issued a Temporary Restraining Order for years. When caught and called out on this unlawful and reprehensible behavior, Malloy suddenly started a push to make legal the actions of the State Police, instead of holding them accountable as was recommended to the FBI.

Malloy also did not mention the lies that Lt. Governor Wyman, his general counsel Attorney Buffkin as well as the other anti-rights lobbyists that were present at the March 11th Judiciary Committee hearing told about 20 states having this law in place. We are also confident that they have not yet provided the statistics about those supposed 20 states (which are now just 'several') having lower domestic violence because of this kind of law as opposed to Connecticut. And they never will, because that is ludicrous logic with zero factual basis.

"The anti-rights groups and politicians are clearly worried by the utter slap-down that they received in the March 11th Judiciary Public Hearing. Their anti-rights bankrollers like Bloomberg must be applying a lot of pressure for them to call in a completely irrelevant and ignorant emotional prop like Gabby Giffords." - Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess

On March 11th, the Connecticut Judiciary Committee held a Public Hearing to discuss several bills in front of a standing room only hearing room that will impact our individual rights in Connecticut.

Senate Bill 650 – A bill seeking to remove due process from the restraining order process

House Bill 6848 - A bill seeking to remove due process from the restraining order process

House Bill 6962 – A government overreach seeking to criminalize gun owners for keeping their firearms accessible when in their homes.

These bills were widely and universally rejected by the advocates for individual rights that appeared at the hearing, including Connecticut Carry. More instructive in this hearing, though were the arguments from the proponents. At the end of the day, when the two sides had battled things out in front of the legislature, the proponents of the anti-rights bills were left with a singular refrain: “there is a lack of education about the risk warrant statute”. Interestingly, Connecticut Carry has been the sole organization to spend time and money to educate members of the public, state government and law enforcement about the Risk Warrant statute (CGS 29-38c) in Connecticut, which has been law for 15 years and has been discussed at length in both the media and in cases all over the state.

One of the things that struck the leadership of Connecticut Carry was the stunning display of ignorance of the Connecticut General Statutes by not only the Lt. Gov, her counsel and many members of the Judiciary Committee, but also the 'Domestic Violence Advocates' that were advocating for these anti-rights measures. We heard Representative Jeffrey Berger ask if permits can be issued to people subject to Restraining Orders, which is one of the most basic questions on the pistol permit application and is a disqualifier by statute (CGS 29-28(b)). The Governor’s General Counsel could not answer this either. We also watched in amazement as Attorney Buffkin, General Counsel for the Governor’s office, stated that she did not know why the current statutes involved Restraining Orders require a hearing within 14 days, a provision clearly entered into the statute to satisfy the requirement of due process.

Lt. Governor Wyman and her counsel stood fast, in the face of repeated questioning, by the idea that a 'transfer' to an FFL or the police would somehow only transfer possession and not ownership. This is false. They do not even understand the basics of the word that they use: 'transfer'. When a person transfers a firearm to an FFL, they transfer ownership. And it also means that if the property in question is defined under the CGS as a 'Large Capacity Magazine' or 'Assault Weapon', it cannot be transferred back. Ever. The same administration that rammed through the 2013 Gun Ban is now advocating for a way to confiscate those firearms from people on a single person's accusation with no legal method to get those firearms back.

With the ignorance on display in the hearing from the proponents of these bills, it should be no surprise that you could drive a large truck through the holes in their understandings of how firearms laws work in Connecticut. For instance, what do they plan to do against a domestic abuser who has unregistered firearms? There is no requirement in Connecticut for firearms to be registered, only new firearms bought in this state are subject to this provision. And the state database is horribly flawed and contains many, many errors. The bills rely on the honor system from people who abuse their domestic partners and the proponents believe might be homicidal.

This is the illusion of safety, not safety.

The truly sad part is that the facts do not matter to the proponents of these bills. Representative William Tong said at one point in reference to the overwhelming opposition he saw at the hearing "this does not have to be intellectually coherent". Well, yes, it does. We demand that. Legislation should not be based on emotional rhetoric Representative Tong.

"I would like to express my surprise and shock that Nancy Wyman, the Lt. Governor and her General Counsel Attorney Karen Buffkin would appear before the Judiciary Committee to testify in support of proposed firearms legislation that they know nothing about. My concern extends to the lack of knowledge shown by members of the Judiciary Committee who clearly have NO working knowledge of existing laws, regulations, policies and practices regarding firearms" - Connecticut Carry Director of Legal Affairs Edward Peruta

"It is disappointing and downright pathetic that people are advocating against the basic tenets of law like due process and our individual rights. But it is absolutely despicable that they do so in the name of cases that would not have been helped by anything that they are proposing. Shame on the proponents of these bills and anyone who would further these bills." - Connecticut Carry President Richard Burgess

“"It was a pleasure representing the law abiding firearm owners of Connecticut by my appearance in front of the Connecticut Judiciary Committee on March 11, 2015. Hopefully my testimony and answers to questions posed by members of the committee, will provide a better working knowledge of firearm issues on which the committee members may base any future firearm related decisions." – Attorney Rachel M. Baird

From the start of this election season, Connecticut Carry has received regular inquiries from media sources about who we will be endorsing for the 2014 election season. As our members know and we communicate regularly, we will not be endorsing candidates for the 2014 election.

One of the primary reasons for this is that there is no one to endorse. The current crop of political candidates range from downright horrible to only wanting to use us for our votes to absolutely delusional. During the votes on SB 1160, candidates that opposed SB 1160 did not stand up for individual rights, instead, they exercised self-preservation. They hemmed and hawed about how they had read the bill but did not think it would put in the right restrictions. There should have been one answer: ‘No’. There was no law that would have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre and there is no law that will stop a future event.

There is a mountain of work to be done before we will see candidates that represent the ideals of liberty loving Connecticut residents. Until we see those types of politicians, we cannot endorse candidates.

In addition, we are non-partisan. Instead of doing like many other organizations do that call themselves ‘non-partisan’ and default to listing everyone on their side of the aisle, we would require any candidate to meet our standards for the advocacy of individual rights no matter what party they did or didn’t belong to.

Since we are the zero compromise, pro-rights organization in Connecticut, we refuse to make allegiances or alliances with politicians that can and will turn their backs on our organization and members once they get into office. Instead, we hold politicians to the merits of their decisions. This can be seen in our ‘Never Forgive. Never Forget. Vote them out’ campaign as well as our ‘Unfit for Office’ campaign. These campaigns have been effective in educating our members and the public about politicians that have worked against our rights. We believe that education contributed to John McKinney’s crushing defeat in the primaries.

Citizens that want to get educated on who to vote for or against can visit our legislative site and view who voted for and against the 2013 Gun Ban.

“Connecticut residents need to remember that the only reasonable goal this election season is to send as many anti-rights politicians as possible to the unemployment line. We all must vote for whoever can best unseat the people who voted against the human right to self-defense in April, 2013. Luckily, they provided us with a list of who we should vote against in the form of the SB 1160 tally sheet.” – Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess

By defeating John McKinney, candidate for Governor, in the primaries, Connecticut gun owners today declared John McKinney Unfit for Office. This goes hand in hand with Connecticut Carry's declaration that all legislators that voted for the 2013 Gun Ban are also Unfit for Office.

In the case of John McKinney, he not only voted for the 2013 Gun Ban, he was also an architect of it. For these reasons, it was extremely important to make sure that John McKinney was defeated early in the election process to show that politicians that vote for anti-rights bills will die a quick political death.

Connecticut Carry has released a list of politicians and their votes for the 2013 Gun Ban.

Summary Judgment, Connecticut’s first and only public television talk show focused on how the state is impacting your rights, will be moving to a new time slot. Summary Judgment will air weekly on Saturdays 6pm – 8pm. We will be accepting viewer call ins at (860) 721-8814.

If your cable provider is Cox Communication, you can watch the show live on channel 15 from the following towns:

Wethersfield

South Windsor

Manchester

Glastonbury

Newington

Rocky Hill

If your cable is provided by AT&T U-Verse, subscribers can access and view the program live by finding the show on Channel 99 under Wethersfield Community Television programs.

For anyone else, you can view the program live and participate in the program through live streaming at: http://sjtalkshow.com/Live

Find more information about Summary Judgment on the Summary Judgment website:

Connecticut Carry has released on its You Tube channel a transformative video meant as a commentary to the ‘Everytown for Gun Safety’ video campaign ‘Will You Stop This?’. In their graphic video, the anti-rights group inadvertently provide an advertisement for women to be armed while arguing that citizens should be less armed. The video shows an enraged man kicking down a door, taking a child and pulling a firearm on the defenseless woman in what appears to be her own home. If the woman was armed, the video could have a very different ending; a positive one instead of the negative one that was portrayed.

As women all over the state of Connecticut are arming themselves and seeking firearms and self-defense training, Connecticut Carry felt it was appropriate to transform this video into an educational message for women everywhere:

“Refuse to be a victim. Get Armed. Get Trained.”

That is a positive and empowering message that stands a chance of saving lives instead of the gun bans and restraining orders advocated by anti-rights citizen disarmament groups. Studies like the Kleck study have shown that annually there may be up to 2.5 million defensive gun uses. Only 8% of those actually involve gun fire to stop the threat. Guns save lives.

Connecticut Carry cares for all of its members and the public alike. We want women to be safer, and that means that women have the means and the ability to defend themselves against violent criminals who do not obey laws or restraining orders. As the nation saw in Castle Rock v Gonzalez, a restraining order cannot replace lawful self-defense.

“We see and hear from women and men alike on a regular basis that have an immediate need for a firearm to defend themselves against violent criminals in domestic situations. We find it shameful that Connecticut residents end up having to wait 2 years or more in some cases to get a pistol permit to be able to lawfully defend themselves.”

- Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess

“This video is a great exercise of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech. This is speech that is far too important to be restricted in any way.”

- Connecticut Carry Director Edward Peruta

“Everytown for Gun Safety has made the best NRA commercial I have seen in a long time. What better argument could be made through a 30 second video for being armed and trained in using force with a capable tool?”

Connecticut Carry has been made aware that the Connecticut Bar Association (CBA) has proposed to its members that the CBA wishes to file an Amicus, or ‘friend of the court’, Brief in the case of Shew v Malloy in support of the defendant, the State of Connecticut. Ironically, the section of the CBA which has brought this topic for this called “Human Rights and Responsibility”, with their mission being:

“This section focuses on the enforcement, protection, and development of legal protections, which safeguard the rights of individuals”

By proposing to support the 2013 Gun Ban in Connecticut, they have chosen to attack ‘the rights of individuals’ instead of safeguarding those rights. By choosing this stance, they also imply that the 2013 Gun Ban somehow supports ‘Human rights’, even though there is no more of a basic or important human right than the right to self-defense, which they advocate opposing with their proposal. They also inversely imply that the amici on the other side of the issue, including the International Law Enforcement Education and Trainers Association (ILEETA), Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund (LELDF), Law Enforcement Action Network (LEAN), current and retired state and local law enforcement officers, and the Attorney Generals of 23 states are somehow against human rights by opposing the 2013 Gun Ban, a de-facto infringement on individual rights.

In response to this proposal, Attorney Rachel M. Baird of Torrington, CT wrote a scathing letter to the Connecticut Bar Association, which she is a member of. Attorney Scott D. Camassar of the law firm Stephen M. Reck, LLC and Attorney Martha Dean have joined in Attorney Baird’s criticism of the Connecticut Bar Association, bringing up very valid and critical points about the goals of the CBA and their understandings of what the CBA was supposed to stand for.

But, as Connecticut Carry is pointing out, this is not the Connecticut Bar Association’s first foray into advocating against the right to self-defense. In a letter dated 03/12/2013, the Connecticut Bar Association recommended that the legislature pass edicts that later became the basis for SB 1160, otherwise known as the 2013 Gun Ban. In their letter, they advocated on behalf of:

· Universal background checks (registration)

· The banning of ‘assault/military style weapons’ to civilians.

· The banning of the sale of ‘high capacity magazines’ to civilians.

In the letter, they also support Governor Malloy’s gun ban proposals of that time and call them ‘common sense’ which is a sardonic term used by other anti-rights groups to imply that individual rights are somehow not ‘common sense’. They go on to say that they ‘strongly endorse’ the Governor’s proposals, which became SB 1160 that we now live under.

The Connecticut Bar Association joined the world’s bulwark of human rights, China in their declaration about gun bans. By taking the same stance as the communist Chinese government took in "Human Rights Record of the United States in 2011", which was released by the State Council Information Office of the People's Republic of China in May of 2012, the Connecticut Bar Association has made their stance against individual rights and for collectivism clear.

Interestingly, Judge Covello, the Federal District Court judge that dismissed the Shew v Malloy case on summary judgment is a proud member of the Connecticut Bar Association, as declared in his judicial biography. Connecticut Carry must ask whether Judge Covello’s association with the Connecticut Bar Association tainted his decision-making in this case and whether this behavior on the part of an organization that he is a proud member of should mean that he recuse himself from all subsequent firearms-related cases.

The brief that is being proposed by the Connecticut Bar association is against the appeal of Judge Covello’s decision. This kind of conflict of interests is both unbecoming of a ‘professional organization’ like the bar association and it is unbecoming of a sitting Federal judge.

Connecticut Carry has posted a list of the members of the CBA’s “Human Rights and Responsibility” on our website. We urge our members and other concerned members of the public to review the list and strongly reconsider doing any business with anyone on the list. In addition, any member of the Connecticut Bar Association should not be considered a friend of individuals rights unless and until they make a public declaration against this proposal by the Connecticut Bar Association. If you are doing business with an attorney that has not publicly come out against this proposal, please make sure you let them know why you will no longer be able to do business with them.

In keeping with our organizational focus on making sure we have the most educated resources both in Connecticut Carry and in Connecticut, Connecticut Carry will be attending the 2014 NRA Annual Meeting. Connecticut Carry Director Edward Peruta (of Peruta v San Diego) will be accompanying Connecticut Firearms Attorney Rachel M. Baird to the 2014 NRA Annual Meeting in Indianapolis from April 25th - 27th. Individuals and organizations that will be at the convention and would like to arrange a meeting should get in contact with Connecticut Carry (info@ctcarry.com) to make arrangements.

Since opening her office in Torrington, Ms. Baird has represented individuals charged with crimes throughout Connecticut in its Part A (most serious crimes) and Part B state courts. She has also filed federal civil actions against companies, agencies, and towns.

In 2007, when M. Peter Kuck, the longest serving member of Connecticut's Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, retained Ms. Baird to file an action challenging on due process grounds the delay period between the revocation or denial of a handgun permit and an opportunity for hearing before the Board, Ms. Baird's practice was in civil rights, criminal defense, and general trial litigation. Shortly after she accepted Mr. Kuck's case, James F. Goldberg was arrested at a Chili's restaurant in Glastonbury for open carry of a handgun. Through these cases and others brought to her office, she became aware of the clarity lacking in Connecticut's firearms laws and its chilling effect on the lawful conduct of firearms owners. In 2008 another case followed, involving Connecticut's Risk Warrant statute which allows law enforcement to obtain a warrant to seize firearms when a person poses an imminent danger to himself or others. By statute (and the Fourth Amendment) the warrant precedes the seizure; in practice, however, law enforcement first takes the firearms by "voluntary consent" or for "safekeeping" and then, only after the unlawful seizure, obtains a warrant to "seize" the firearms from the department's evidence room. A Connecticut appellate court condoned this practice in a 2010 decision causing confusion among law enforcement and havoc in the courts that Ms. Baird often uses to challenge Risk Warrants on procedural grounds.

Ms. Baird represents individuals in criminal and civil courts throughout Connecticut and Massachusetts and has argued appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York. She is accredited by the Department of Veterans Affairs to represent veterans in agency proceedings. The National Rifle Association Civil Rights Defense Fund have funded three cases filed by Ms. Baird in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

In addition to her admission to the Connecticut Bar, Ms. Baird is licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. She is admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and the District of Massachusetts. In 2005, the Connecticut Bar Foundation selected Ms. Baird to the James W. Cooper Fellows program which requires "demonstrated superior legal ability and devotion to the welfare of the community, state, and nation, as well as to the advancement of the legal profession. "

In addition to his work in Connecticut, including sitting on the board of directors for Connecticut Carry, Mr. Peruta is a plaintiff in the case of Peruta v. San Diego which arose from his failed application to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit from the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department. Mr. Peruta filed a federal cause of action alleging Second Amendment violations against the County in the denial of his permit application based on unconstitutional restrictions imposed on the right to carry outside the home.

On February 13, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided in a landmark decision that Mr. Peruta (and Californians) do not need to show 'good cause' in making application for permits, effectively forcing California counties to become "shall issue" instead of "may issue" jurisdictions.

Anti-rights groups have decided to try and protest the April 5th pro-rights rally in Hartford, Connecticut. In doing so, they have taken to calling pro-rights groups ‘the KKK’, ‘bullies’, ‘intimidating’, ‘threatening police’ and other vulgar lies. In response, Connecticut Carry has launched a counter-protest using the same medium, Thunderclap. The goal is to beat the anti-rights groups at their own social media game while taking the high road.

Using the anti-rights own social media tool against them, Connecticut Carry has engaged them by creating its own Thunderclap campaign which has, so far, completely out paced the anti-rights groups, almost 2 to 1. Our campaign almost instantly replaced the anti-rights campaign in terms of trending and stayed there for the course of the campaign. In a mad scramble to try and save face, the anti-rights groups have tried to accuse Connecticut Carry of somehow ‘cheating’ by engaging its national support base, despite Thunderclap being a national social media tool. Ironically, as Connecticut Carry supporters have pointed out, the anti-rights groups have been appealing to a national audience since they started their campaign. Of course, when these things were pointed out, posts were deleted to cover this up.

Of even more interest is who is supporting each group. With Connecticut Carry being supported mostly by individuals in a showing of grassroots support, the anti-rights groups have gone the opposite direction being supported mostly by national anti-rights groups and millionaire communist propagandists.

Instead of showing the overwhelming support that they claim to have, anti-rights groups have shown exactly what we have been accusing them of: Astroturfing.

“Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g. political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participant(s). It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations more credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection.” – Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing)

This kind of tactic will never override the broad public opposition for their anti-rights bills, however. Liberty is both popular and contagious. That these groups would even dare to defy a concept like individual liberty is both absurd and outrageous. While the governor and legislature was able to hide this fact on April 4th 2013 by ignoring the massive public outcry against gun bills in favor of ‘emergency certification’, the same advantage does not currently exist. And this has the legislators, the governor and the anti-rights groups running scared. Already, we have seen several anti-rights legislators decide not to run again, and the anti-rights groups have announced ‘Super PACs’ to try and funnel more national anti-rights money into Connecticut. If these groups had the broad public support that they claim, they would not need these astroturfing options.

Regardless of their corporate sponsors, Connecticut Carry remains unwavering in its opposition to the 2013 Gun Ban. The coalition of 30 anti-rights groups still remain impotent, lacking in public support and they need to lie about gun owners to get anyone to pay attention to them.

President Rich Burgess had this to say of the battle:

“To date, this will be the anti-rights groups largest thunderclap, and we would like to say ‘You are welcome’ for giving them even a shred of attention. Usually people just ignore the indignant whine of anti-rights groups, but Connecticut and the nation are about to hear the roar of those who support liberty.”